The US should overcome its humiliation and look at the potential for space commerce
revealed by Dennis Tito's orbit

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
So now the Russians are too capitalist, are they? That at least
seems to be the consensus in the west, where Nasa and the
media alike are lambasting Russian officials for accepting $20m
from the Californian investor Dennis Tito in exchange for a
six-day ride on the International Space Station.

As it became clear, late last week, that Mr Tito would not only
experience the dream of every western male but also make it
safely back to the steppes of Kazakhstan, the outrage spread.
The space tourist's report that his trip was "paradise" seemed to
seal the damage: the critics now charge that the Russians have irreversibly Disneyified
space, dirtying the pure air of a state-sector industry.

One might fault the Russians here for fanning the flame of American rage - "If he will sign a
contract, every citizen of the planet can ride if his health permits," Yuri Grigoryev of Russia's
Energia rocket company told The Washington Post. "The station is open to
commercialisation." Mr Grigoryev might just as well have said: "Take that, Land of the Free!"

Still, the attackers are too hasty. Space exploration these days is, after all, as much an
innovative and scientific project as a military one. And when it comes to innovation, the profit
motive has tended to show up the public sector every time. What holds on earth could hold
at the Final Frontier.

Consider the objections levied against Mr Tito and his Russian co-conspirators.

First, there is the complaint that only professionals should be allowed to travel in space. This
argument belies the record of the space race, which in fact is littered with examples of rank
amateurs - and animals - entering orbit. One thinks of Laika the dog, or Christa McAuliffe, the
schoolteacher who went down with the Challenger. Space "fairness", as author Tom Wolfe
long ago pointed out in The Right Stuff, is an inherently risible concept: "The ape was an
astronaut! Perhaps the female ape who backed him up deserved the next flight. Let her fly,
godammit! She has earned it as much as the seven human ones." Besides, Mr Tito in fact is
something of a space professional - in his younger days he put in years at Nasa's Pasadena
jet propulsion laboratory, which means that he is a rocket scientist.

Second, it is said that permitting civilian guests to come along is too dangerous. The first
reply here should be: too dangerous for whom? Military and space exercises are always
and inherently risky for the professional participants and for innocent bystanders as well.
Claiming that the additional distraction of a guest will always make the mission more
dangerous suggests that the hosts cannot know their own limits. This is probably wrong. It
is a sure bet, for example, that the US Navy is currently rewriting its rule books to prevent a
repeat of its Greeneville disaster, when a US submarine surfaced and killed nine Japanese
on a fishing boat. And the cash tourism supplies will also allow expensive safety
improvements - $20m is enough to upgrade a lot of equipment.

If the issue is the fate of the paying passenger, the safety argument becomes even weaker.
Like any Ferrari owner, Mr Tito knew what he was undertaking. The choice here should be
up to the individual. Many will decline - most Americans, after all, will not drive a car without
an airbag, let alone fly Aeroflot or ride Soyuz into the ether. Before Mr Tito signed away all
rights to lawsuits, many Americans were charging that trips like his would make the military,
or Nasa, vulnerable to troubling litigation. But if the US cannot reconcile its adventure culture
with its litigious one, it is probably the latter that needs reforming.

Third, critics argue it is wrong to sell a public good. The western taxpayer is footing a good
share of the cost of the space station; why should Mr Tito, a private citizen, benefit from
that? The first response here is simple: he should not. And from the point of the Russian
taxpayers, he did not: they got $20m for their hospitality. If Nasa had not worked itself into
such a huff over his trip, Nasa lawyers might have thought to write their agency into the
contract with Mr Tito.

But there is a more profound answer here. It is that governments always sell public goods
when it suits them. Think of Senator John Glenn's 1990s ride, a blatant bid for continued
funding. The only difference here is that instead of selling those goods to a lawmaker or
another person of political influence, the Russian government sold to a citizen for cash.

Lastly, it is alleged that the Russians will use the money for dark purposes. Perhaps. But the
incentive of a steady cash stream from late-life-crisis millionaires is more likely to lure the
Russians into the relatively benign business of space tourism. Commerce reduces bellicosity
- at least, that is the case the west makes for engagement with China - and money is
fungible. A Russia funded by geriatric thrillseekers may no longer feel the need to hawk its
armoury and intellectual capital to rogue states.

The real trouble with the critics' claims, though, is that they obscure the benefits that space
tourism may bring. Fans of the private sector have long pointed to Nasa's legendary
inefficiencies. If business had been allowed to compete with Nasa, they argue, there would
already be time-shares for sale on Mars.

They are probably right. But you do not have to be a blinkered libertarian to see the value of
a little private-sector activity in the space sector: the prod of competition can only make
government space programmes better. It is downright embarrassing that Washington must
sit for lessons on markets at the knee of officials from a formerly communist nation. But
American officials need to look beyond their humiliation to see the potential here. Come on,
Nasa, snap to. Dollars can buy more of the right
stuff.

05/07/01: Why tax havens provide shelter for everyone05/04/01: Middle classes pay for get-the-rich folly05/01/01: Money can't buy happiness? Think again. 04/26/01: Calling America's rogues and entrepreneurs04/19/01: High earners right to feel lonely at the top04/11/01: The right must learn the comfort of strangers04/04/01: When domestic law arrives by the back door03/30/01: A Lexus tax cut suits the jalopy driver03/27/01: The unchallenged dominance of King Dollar03/20/01: Natural selection of an intellectual aristocracy03/16/01: The hidden danger of a regulatory recession03/14/01: Is the American condition that boring? Why so many Oscar nominated movies aren't set in America03/07/01: Trampling on the theory of path dependence03/05/01: Fighting the good fight03/01/01: It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up02/27/01: IT's important02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan02/05/01: Crack and Compassion 01/31/01: Debt is good01/29/01: Clueless01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator 01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience' 01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes 12/11/00: So smart they're dumb 12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush12/04/00: The Boies factor 11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne…"11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election11/09/00: Those powerful expats11/07/00:
What's right for America versus what works11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness10/24/00: The most accurate poll10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right 10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich 10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?09/18/00: First steps to success09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people08/28/00: A reali$tic poll08/21/00: "I Goofed" 08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes